Directing nuclear deformation on micropillared surfaces by substrate geometry and cytoskeleton organization.

We have recently demonstrated strong nuclear deformation of SaOs-2 osteosarcoma cells on poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) micropillar substrates. In the present study, we first demonstrated that chemical and mechanical properties of the micropillar substrates have no dominant effect on deformation. However, SaOs-2 nucleus deformation could be strongly modulated by varying the pillar size and spacing, highlighting the importance of geometric constraints for shaping the nucleus. Furthermore, comparing the capacity for nuclear deformation in three different osteosarcoma cell lines (SaOs-2, MG-63 and OHS-4) revealed strong cell-type specific differences. Surprisingly, the highly-deformable SaOs-2 cell line displayed the highest cell stiffness as assessed by AFM-based colloidal force spectroscopy and featured a more prominent array of actin fibres above the nucleus, suggesting a link between actin-mediated cell stiffness and cell nucleus deformation. In contrast, in MG-63 and OHS-4 cells dense microtubule and vimentin networks seem to facilitate some nuclear deformation even in the absence of a prominent actin cytoskeleton. Together these results suggest that an interaction of all three cytoskeletal elements is needed for efficient nuclear deformation. In conclusion, the dominant parameters influencing nuclear deformation on micropillar substrates are not their material properties but the substrate geometry together with cell phenotype and cytoskeleton organization.

[1]  D. Brunette,et al.  The effects of the surface topography of micromachined titanium substrata on cell behavior in vitro and in vivo. , 1999, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[2]  O. Gallet,et al.  Plasma fibronectin: three steps to purification and stability. , 1999, Protein expression and purification.

[3]  A. Albini,et al.  The chemoinvasion assay: a method to assess tumor and endothelial cell invasion and its modulation , 2007, Nature Protocols.

[4]  Shulamit Levenberg,et al.  Effect of scaffold stiffness on myoblast differentiation. , 2009, Tissue engineering. Part A.

[5]  I. Dupin,et al.  Nuclear positioning: mechanisms and functions. , 2011, The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology.

[6]  J. Ohayon,et al.  The motility of normal and cancer cells in response to the combined influence of the substrate rigidity and anisotropic microstructure. , 2008, Biomaterials.

[7]  J. Davie,et al.  Nuclear matrix proteins associated with DNA in situ in hormone-dependent and hormone-independent human breast cancer cell lines. , 2000, Cancer research.

[8]  Simon Schulz,et al.  Early keratinocyte differentiation on micropillar interfaces. , 2007, Nano letters.

[9]  E. Holzbaur,et al.  Dynein drives nuclear rotation during forward progression of motile fibroblasts , 2008, Journal of Cell Science.

[10]  Christopher S. Chen,et al.  Cells lying on a bed of microneedles: An approach to isolate mechanical force , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Marion Ghibaudo,et al.  Traction forces and rigidity sensing regulate cell functions , 2008 .

[12]  E. Bertolino,et al.  Transcriptional repression mediated by repositioning of genes to the nuclear lamina , 2008, Nature.

[13]  G. Blobel,et al.  Lamin B constitutes an intermediate filament attachment site at the nuclear envelope , 1987, The Journal of cell biology.

[14]  Matthew J. Dalby,et al.  The role of microtopography in cellular mechanotransduction. , 2012, Biomaterials.

[15]  Shyam B. Khatau,et al.  The perinuclear actin cap in health and disease , 2010, Nucleus.

[16]  J. Jansen,et al.  The effect of poly-L-lactic acid with parallel surface micro groove on osteoblast-like cells in vitro. , 1999, Biomaterials.

[17]  M. Dembo,et al.  Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[18]  Daniel Gioeli,et al.  Matrix Rigidity Regulates Cancer Cell Growth and Cellular Phenotype , 2010, PloS one.

[19]  Maxence Bigerelle,et al.  Relative influence of surface topography and surface chemistry on cell response to bone implant materials. Part 1: Physico-chemical effects , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[20]  D. G. T. Strange,et al.  Extracellular-matrix tethering regulates stem-cell fate. , 2012, Nature materials.

[21]  S. Etienne-Manneville,et al.  Cytoplasmic intermediate filaments mediate actin-driven positioning of the nucleus , 2011, Journal of Cell Science.

[22]  Direct assessment of living cell mechanical responses during deformation inside microchannel restrictions , 2011, Biointerphases.

[23]  William P King,et al.  Myoblast alignment and differentiation on cell culture substrates with microscale topography and model chemistries. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[24]  J. Jansen,et al.  Growth behavior of fibroblasts on microgrooved polystyrene. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[25]  G. Shivashankar Mechanosignaling to the cell nucleus and gene regulation. , 2011, Annual review of biophysics.

[26]  V. Hasırcı,et al.  Microstructured Surfaces Cause Severe but Non‐Detrimental Deformation of the Cell Nucleus , 2009 .

[27]  M Manimaran,et al.  Matrigel coated polydimethylsiloxane based microfluidic devices for studying metastatic and non-metastatic cancer cell invasion and migration , 2007, Biomedical microdevices.

[28]  Kris Noel Dahl,et al.  In the middle of it all: mutual mechanical regulation between the nucleus and the cytoskeleton. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[29]  Denis Wirtz,et al.  A perinuclear actin cap regulates nuclear shape , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  D. Discher,et al.  Cell responses to the mechanochemical microenvironment--implications for regenerative medicine and drug delivery. , 2007, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[31]  J. Lammerding Mechanics of the nucleus. , 2011, Comprehensive Physiology.

[32]  S. Taniguchi,et al.  [Cytoskeleton of cancer cells]. , 1986, Nihon rinsho. Japanese journal of clinical medicine.

[33]  Harihara Baskaran,et al.  A microfluidic imaging chamber for the direct observation of chemotactic transmigration , 2010, Biomedical microdevices.

[34]  Maxence Bigerelle,et al.  Role of materials surface topography on mammalian cell response , 2011 .

[35]  Karine Anselme,et al.  Topographically induced self-deformation of the nuclei of cells: dependence on cell type and proposed mechanisms , 2010, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[36]  M. Textor,et al.  Dimensionality Controls Cytoskeleton Assembly and Metabolism of Fibroblast Cells in Response to Rigidity and Shape , 2010, PloS one.

[37]  C. Shanahan,et al.  Nesprins LINC the nucleus and cytoskeleton. , 2011, Current opinion in cell biology.

[38]  C Rotsch,et al.  Drug-induced changes of cytoskeletal structure and mechanics in fibroblasts: an atomic force microscopy study. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[39]  Jiandong Ding,et al.  Control of cell nucleus shapes via micropillar patterns. , 2012, Biomaterials.

[40]  Maxence Bigerelle,et al.  Relative influence of surface topography and surface chemistry on cell response to bone implant materials. Part 2: Biological aspects , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[41]  Kevin E. Healy,et al.  Engineering gene expression and protein synthesis by modulation of nuclear shape , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  Lorenzo Moroni,et al.  Micropatterned hot-embossed polymeric surfaces influence cell proliferation and alignment. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[43]  Lydie Ploux,et al.  Cell/Material Interfaces: Influence of Surface Chemistry and Surface Topography on Cell Adhesion , 2010 .

[44]  Matthew J Dalby,et al.  Nucleus alignment and cell signaling in fibroblasts: response to a micro-grooved topography. , 2003, Experimental cell research.

[45]  T. Shimi,et al.  The functions of the nuclear envelope in mediating the molecular crosstalk between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. , 2012, Current opinion in cell biology.

[46]  J. Spatz,et al.  Soft micropillar interfaces of distinct biomechanics govern behaviour of periodontal cells. , 2010, European journal of cell biology.

[47]  S. Sen,et al.  Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification , 2006, Cell.

[48]  D. Docheva,et al.  Researching into the cellular shape, volume and elasticity of mesenchymal stem cells, osteoblasts and osteosarcoma cells by atomic force microscopy , 2007, Journal of cellular and molecular medicine.

[49]  R. Langer,et al.  Engineering substrate topography at the micro- and nanoscale to control cell function. , 2009, Angewandte Chemie.

[50]  Y. Wang,et al.  Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[51]  A. Taddei,et al.  Re-positioning genes to the nuclear envelope in mammalian cells: impact on transcription. , 2008, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[52]  Claudio G. Rolli,et al.  Impact of Tumor Cell Cytoskeleton Organization on Invasiveness and Migration: A Microchannel-Based Approach , 2010, PloS one.

[53]  G. Stein,et al.  Nuclear matrix proteins distinguish normal diploid osteoblasts from osteosarcoma cells. , 1994, Cancer research.

[54]  C. Murphy,et al.  Epithelial contact guidance on well-defined micro- and nanostructured substrates , 2003, Journal of Cell Science.

[55]  M. Bissell,et al.  Gene Expression in the Third Dimension: The ECM-nucleus Connection , 2010, Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia.

[56]  M. Radmacher,et al.  Substrate dependent differences in morphology and elasticity of living osteoblasts investigated by atomic force microscopy. , 2000, Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces.